Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4954, the port security bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all second- degree amendments be filed at the desk by 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I object. Just a minute. We do not want to have a whole schedule here through one Senator having the floor. What amendment is now pending before the Senate?

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator from New York yielding time on Senator Schumer's amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. What is the request for time limitation on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. I am not objecting to her setting aside the Schumer amendment. She has made a request beyond that for a limitation of time on some amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to be as constrained as possible on this concept, but I do want to talk about this amendment of Senator Reid's. It is a 500-plus-page amendment to be added to our port security bill, and most of the provisions are totally unrelated to port security. It covers Iraq policy; intelligence reform; all of the 9/11 Commission reforms; troop redeployment concepts; Iraqi contractor provisions; a section regarding detainees, such as those people at Guantanamo Bay; immigration and border security; and a whole section on transportation. Now, I do not know if the Senate realizes, but the port security bill that our committee, the Commerce Committee, reported was originally Senator Inouye's bill. As a matter of fact, we took it and reviewed it and made some minor modifications to it, and Senator Inouye suggested that my name go first since I was chairman. We are cochairmen of the committee. As a matter of fact, it was the Inouye, Stevens, Collins, Lieberman, Grassley, Baucus, Coleman, Murray amendment that we were talking about when we finally got to the floor and put everything together. We worked on trying to make this bill before the Senate a bipartisan bill, and what does my good friend--he is my good friend--the Democratic leader, do? He brings us a bill, 500 pages, totally partisan. There is no bipartisanship in that bill at all. In each instance, it is the minority's position on these very controversial subjects. We have worked 18 months to come to the floor with bills from three committees--a bipartisan approach--and we are at the last minute supposed to vote on an amendment with 500- plus pages on a whole series of things. I remember people used to say: It's everything but the kitchen sink. Do you know what I mean? There is so much in this bill that is totally partisan--it is awesome--when we are working to try to finish up this year and trying to reach out and be bipartisan. Above all bills, this bill we brought to the floor was bipartisan--three separate committees on a bipartisan basis. And from all three committees, the ranking members and the chairmen signed that bill. Now, I cannot think of anything that has been done to destroy the bipartisanship we seek to have to deal with issues such as security other than this bill. Why should we be forced to have a cloture vote or raise a point of order against a bill like that? It should not have been brought to the floor. Now, it is time we settled down and started thinking about: How can we get our work done? There are going to be elections soon, and it is a tough period for everybody. One-third of the Senate is up for election. I know that. We all know that. And we try to understand, on a bipartisan basis, we should do some things and not be offensive to people who are up for election. I hope I am not being offensive to my friend from Nevada. But I am telling him he should not, as a leader, do this. And it is time we thought about how we can settle problems like the security at our ports. The bill we brought to the floor could have been passed with one or two amendments in a few hours. As a matter of fact, we thought that was going to happen. We really did. Because of the cooperation that was there from each committee and the work we did literally through our staffs and through the members of consolidating the work of three different committees on a bipartisan basis, we thought we had this subject covered. But the amendments that are being brought to us now have nothing to do with port security. We thought we would emphasize port security. At the suggestion of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, we put rail security in. It, too, is so interlocked with port security, it was justifiable. And, again, that portion of the bill was bipartisan. No question about it. That was part of the work of our committee on railroad and rail security. But I say to the Senate, time is now a commodity before the election. There is very little of it left. I would hope we don't have any more of these amendments. And if we do, I think we ought to face the question of just immediately tabling them. Let's stay directed toward what our work demands of us; and that is, to take the action that is necessary to assure security in the different modes of transportation that our people must use. I hope we will have no more of these amendments. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the time situation between the two parties?

Mr. STEVENS. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Is that a vote subject to reconsideration?

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4975

Mr. STEVENS. The Biden amendment is now the pending business?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wish to discuss this for a few minutes. I call to the attention of the Senate that this, too, is an all- inclusive amendment. It restores the cuts for law enforcement. It deals with all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It deals with requiring 100 percent screening of cargo containers, which is our objective. But we cannot do it all at once. It seeks to bring about screening technologies for liquid explosives and other hazardous materials. It has some interoperable language in it. This represents a 32-percent annual increase over the current allocation of funds for the Department of Homeland Security. It requires a substantial addition to the Department of Homeland Security. The interesting thing--and my friend from Delaware is innovative in terms of this--is it does not appropriate the money, but it requires the committee to come forward with a bill to provide $53 billion additional for the Department of Homeland Security. It is a very interesting amendment, there is no question about that. This is another one of those things everyone would like to do if they had the money to do it. Beyond that, the way it is done, it is a difficult amendment to deal with. It is not necessary to carry out the port security bill or the real portion of this bill. It deals with an enormous number of issues beyond the scope of the bill. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to move to table this amendment. I give my friend from Delaware a chance if he wishes to make a final statement. I move to table the Senator's amendment, but I ask that there be consideration of a period of time prior to voting on that so the Senator may express his point of view; I would say 4 minutes equally divided, or something like that, before the vote. I have been requested to state that we would like to have that vote take place at 2 p.m. today and prior to the vote have 4 minutes equally divided, with no amendments or other motions in order, and the motion to table subject only to the provision of 4 minutes before a vote is taken on that motion.

Mr. STEVENS. I don't know who has the floor. I think the Senator from New York does. Madam President, we are perfectly willing to enter into a time agreement on the Senator's amendment, but we want some allocated to this side, too. We would like to know what the request is for time.

Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection to the Senator requesting time for herself and the Senator from Massachusetts. I just don't think it is right to have a time allocation without consideration of the Senators, that is all.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take 1 minute and reserve 1 minute. I make this motion to table because I believe this amendment is so comprehensive, it really doesn't belong on this bill. The concept of the funding for the activities recommended by the Biden amendment is the amendment mandates the committee to bring out a bill to provide the funding. It would be an increase of $32.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department; that is a 19-percent increase over the amount that has already been allocated. We do not need that. This is not the place to consider that, anyway. This deals with restoring the cuts that have taken place in law enforcement areas. It is looking at liquid explosives and hazardous materials concepts. It has a whole series of things in here that deal with funding--money for more FBI agents, more money for Justice Assistance grants, more money for Customs agents. A whole series of things are involved. It is two pages long. The money that would be authorized by the funds that the Biden amendment would mandate we provide under the appropriate procedures. Being essentially a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it is difficult to deal with, but that kind of resolution becomes a mandate in the next year. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What happens if the Senator does not arrive and the time comes?

Mr. STEVENS. Let me use the remainder of my other minute, then. I point out to the Senate that this amendment would create a new trust fund, and into that trust fund would go the moneys that would come from the mandate to the Finance Committee to reduce the scheduled and existing income tax reductions enacted since the taxable year 2001 with respect to what taxpayers earn in excess of $1 million a year. That is a laudable thing, but this is not just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution; it is a mandate to the Senate to do this.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at another time I might discuss this subject, Net neutrality, with the Senator from Oregon. I think what I will do is send him a copy of all the letters I have received from his constituents who agree with me. But I thank him very much for his comments.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 585, S. 1902.